Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On fre, 2008-05-23 at 15:19 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> The more I look into this, the better the original syntax looks :-)
>
> Yes, there is reasons why HTTP has the list syntax.. and I think that
> one does a great job in keeping the BNF readable.
>
> The reasons for the implied LWS is the same, to make the grammar more
> readable, but unfortunately that one hasn't worked out very well..
>
> If we can get the BNF syntax to a level of
>
> ABNF + list syntax, without implied LWS
>
> then a lot is gained.
Right.
In particular it seems it would be wise to solve the "implied LWS" issue
*first*, and only then start looking at the list production.
> Eleminating the list syntax is mainly a goal to line up the HTTP BNF
> syntax completely with other specifications, but I have a feeling that
> it may be better to extend ABNF with a usable list construct.
I'd prefer that.
If we can't keep it, I'd probably recommend to leave the # notation at
least in ABNF comments.
> While we are at that topic. The specification probably should make sure
> to recommend producers to not produce lists with empty elements (a
> SHOULD NOT). Not sure we have that in the specs today. Parsers MUST
> accept them however and is what the BNF description describes but there
> quite likely is many broken implementations out there not expecting
> empty elements..
What do others think? Is there consensus for this? In which case we
should raise a separate issue.
BR, Julian